Tuesday, 30 September 2008


As mentioned in an earlier posting on this blog, one of the main industries and largest employers in Malta is their shipyards which are state owned.

On Tuesday 30th September, 2008, the Times of Malta reported that of the 1,455 workers in the Malta shipyards, all but 172 of them had applied to take the offer of early retirement as part of the EU's instructions to the Maltese government to privatise the shipyards and to cease giving state aid to this major Maltese industry. What will happen to the shipyards in Malta is anyones guess, it's sad that the people of Malta were sold a promise of influence and wealth if they joined the EU, but the reality is job losses and subservience.

Monday, 29 September 2008


The big Tory shindig has got off to a strange start in Birmingham, the leadership and all the Tory plotters and planners were all ready to launch their key initiatives and push the Tory machine forward towards the next general election and the eventual crushing of New Labour, but everything has been screwed up by a very inconvenient global financial crisis - what a bit of a stinker that was for the poor dears.

The Conservative Party these days is very strange combination of views.  The rank and file Tory faithful still hold true to the old values which have always put them in good stead, they still believe in low taxation, small government, encouragement for enterprise and, most important of all, the sovereignty and freedom of the nation which automatically makes them opponents of the EU. Amongst their ranks are the wets, they have always been there inhabiting the wishy washy world where sitting on the fence sorts out all the problems, talk to these and they will contradict themselves over the EU. On one hand they will say we can't leave and we have to be in there to have influence, then on the other they will tell you that the EU has to be changed from within - poor sad souls - they don't have a clue.
Then there are the traditionalist who agree with UKIP that we should quit the EU pronto.  Sadly, within their party there are people who work both factions and try to sound all things to all men but have their own agenda which is in total opposition to their members - this then is the Tory leadership.

David Cameron will not take Britain out of the EU, he will not cut taxes or reduce the burden of excessive EU bureaucracy, yet somehow or other his followers blindly believe that he will produce these policies, all they have to do is have blind faith and continue to follow.

To see Cameron's true colours there was a prime example in Birmingham on Monday 29th September.  One of the fringe events was organised by the anti-EU and largely Tory supporting Bruges Group who held their event in the Midlands Institute.  The line up of speakers for the afternoon were: Conservative MEPs Roger Helmer (top left), Dan Hannan (lower right), UKIP Leader Nigel Farage MEP and journalist Simon Heffer.  

The room was so full for the event there was standing room only - but no Helmer or Hannon.  They had been instructed By David Cameron not to be at the meeting or speak on the subject.  What has Cameron to fear from two of his most EU-sceptical MEPs telling the truth about the EU as they have done so eloquently at many meetings over the years?  

One woman at the meeting was critical of UKIP for putting up candidates against Conservative candidates who may have a chance of beating Labour, she was told: what's the point, it makes no difference who is elected, Tory or Labour, neither will take us out of the EU and we will continue to be governed by people we do not elect.  Sadly, like many Tories, she has blind faith that somehow her party will save her.  

The banning of Helmer and Hannan from the Bruges Group meeting, in my opinion, shows the true pro-EU nature of Cameron and his leadership team - they are leading a lot of very good people into a blind EU ally where all hope will be dashed.


Still catching up with everything, but I think I am becoming paranoid about the banking crisis.

I've always been useless with money. I get by but seldom seem to have much saved in the bank, my pension scheme promises a poverty stricken retirement and as soon as I have a bob or two it vanishes on bills and other necessary items. So, as you can tell, I am no fiscal expert which is one reason I haven't written a lot about the banking crisis as I am still having a job to get my head around it.

From my perspective (no doubt others better informed than I will soon put me right) it looks as if the banks got greedy, and callous. They loaned money to people that they knew would have problems repaying the loans on the basis that the value of the property the loans were secured on would increase. However, they got their sticky little finger burned because the value of property declined instead of increasing. The market was then flooded with repossessed houses worth less than the loans on them and confidence in the banks that practised this evaporated – hence the rush on Northern Rock.

We now have a situation where banks do not trust other banks and will not loan to each other, and businesses and individuals who need loans for investment, house purchases or home improvements are struggling to get the loans they need which then adds the double whammy that business investments and their markets dry up and house values continue to slide as no one has the money to buy them – or that’s the way I see it.

So what’s the answer to this situation? It would seem that governments all over the place, including our own, are nationalising banks to stop the money supply drying up completely as their answer to the conundrum. It was when I was reading a posting on developments on the banking crisis at EU Referendum that a rather paranoid thought crossed my mind – is all this a set up to enable governments take control of the banks and ultimately the property and businesses of those who owe the banks? Just think about it, if you have a mortgage and the Government takes over your bank then your home is the property of the state. If you run a business with an overdraft or loans for investment, then your business is the property of the state, and this is happening all over the Western world. That worries me greatly. When the state gets too powerful it can be bad news for the people – or am I being paranoid?


Here's a photo you didn't expect to see on this blog, a picture of me, the blog editor, Derek Bennett, starkers!

The reason this old photo of me in the all together is being shown is due to the fact it is linked to why there have been no postings on this blog since Friday, I've been in North Wales at my mothers clearing out the loft with my brother, where we came across this ancient photo, taken of me by my dear old dad, in the back yard in Lupin Street, Birmingham, before we moved away from what was described as "the slums".
This photo must have been taken around 1949, I couldn't have been more than two years old at the time.  Those were different days than today, you only have to look at the surroundings in that picture to see that everything was dilapidated and run down, I still remember that back yard which had a gap at the top where a building used to stand, until the Lutwaffe did a demolition job on it.  The bombed house was once the home to a local boxer who, from what my old dad told me, was a bit of a local celebrity.

The thing I remember about those days was there was a sense of pride amongst the people.  They had very little, rationing was still in place, you couldn't buy many things because all the factories had been geared up for the war effort and there was no production set up, or the raw materials, to feed a consumer led society as we have today, but there was a sense of community as you can see from the old photo of my family taken outside the home of my
 grandparents on Coronation day, 1953.  I am the kid on the right in the busby hat and Guards uniform sitting on the window sill, my grandad is the chap on the right of the photo with a fag in his hand leaning against the door frame.

I grew up through those times and into better days when we as a family began to see better times, thanks to the hard work of my parents who set up their own business and began to prosper.  They are days long gone and as the old saying goes: "The past is a foreign country".  Then we had politicians who stood up for this country through hard days, they did not capitulate to foreign occupation, now our politicians collaborate with those who would see Britain finished as a nation in its own right and fully subsumed into a new empire called Europe.  Well, my past and the things I was taught and raised to believe in those harsher days tell me that to sacrifice our country is treason and is the way of traitor - it is not what those of my family in the photo above went through such times and lost family and friends for.

One of the things we came across as we sorted through all the odds and sods my late father had put in the loft, was a book in which he had hand written his reflections of being called up into the army and the things which had happened to him during his National Service.  I intend to write this up, when I have the time, and set up a sister blog and post his recollections on it, but that is for when I have time.  As I currently write this posting it is almost 1 am in the morning and I still have a load of  e-mails to catch up on.  So I hope you will forgive this brief diversion to the subject in hand and promise normal blogging will resume tomorrow.

Friday, 26 September 2008


Neil Herron, Metric Martyr turned parking campaigner.
That long time scourge of officialdom, Neil Herron, has announced that he is to launch a landmark legal challenge over the use, or should that be misuse, of parking tickets as a 'stealth tax'.

On Thursday 25th September, 2008, he attended the Royal Courts of Law in London to place his application for a judicial review and is now awaiting a date to be set.  If he is successful the rpercusions for the Government and local councils all around the country, who are now pocketing a fortune in fines imposed on motorist, many of which are based on.

Neil has informed this blog that if every single motorist in this country donated just 10p to the Motorists Legal Challenge fund, they would have £3,2 million in the kitty and there would be no speed cameras and far fewer parking restrictions.  Motorists once again would be treaty like normal citizens rather than cash cows to be milked and abused.


Oh groan, oh moan, I.D. cards have reared its ugly police-state head again.  In the Independent newspaper, Thursday 25th September, there is an article about the Government's insistence regarding these monstrous anti-freedom cards which, if fully introduced and made compulsory, will enslave all the people of Britain.

The Government and its ministers make all sorts of claims for the introduction of I.D. cards such as: they will prevent terrorism, help in the fight against crime, stop identity fraud, stop illegal immigration and the list of all the fabled wonders of this little bit of plastic goes on - and on, its a wonder they haven't yet claimed they will prevent verrucas! 

It can, however, be almost guaranteed that I.D. cards will not stop terrorism, they did not stop the Madrid train bombers, nor will they stop home grown terrorists who up until the time they commit another pointless slaughter in the name of Allah, will be classed as decent law abiding British subjects even though they may have a whole mass of explosives strapped to their person.

Then there is the criminal fraternity, they will love I.D. cards which they will fake and forge the moment they are enforced - their false I.D. cards will make them look legitimate and help them greatly in their nefarious affairs.

I.D. card supporters say: "If you have nothing to hide there is nothing to fear."  Well, if you have nothing to hide why should you be treated like a tagged and monitored criminal?  The real reason the Government is so insistent on the introduction of I.D. cards is it, once again, is having to comply with the EU which wants a common I.D. card.  We in the UK, who were born free, are being enslaved on the insistence of the EU.  The real concern is the amount of data that will be contained on these cards, the Government will be able to watch and monitor all that we do, where we go, what we buy and and what books we borrow from libraries.  If a powerful body watching our movements puts two and two together, make five million, and decide our actions are decidedly dodgy, the next thing we may know is that we are being pulled off the streets or face a midnight knock on the door, whisked off to an interrogation centre where we will have to account for our actions.  Add this to other losses of liberties such as trial by jury and the introduction of the EU's system of law, Corpus Juris, we could face incarceration for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and buy the wrong thing.

When you add to this that the EU will get its grubby, corrupt, little mitts on all the information kept on us on the national data-base, and that at some time it will be lost in a public place, that fraudsters will get their hands on it and that  there will be cock-ups which will make our lives a misery if we can't prove we are who we say we are because a bloody bit of plastic will not swipe, there are more reasons than any fictitious benefits why we should say: 'No, no, no, to I.D. cards.


Anthony Couglan of the Irish campaigning group, National Platform, comments on What Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen should now do on Lisbon.

There will be a UK general election in the next 18 months which will return a Conservative Government that is committed to holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Britain and Northern Ireland and recomending a No vote to it so long as the Republic's voters have not reversed their rejection of Lisbon in the meantime, which would enable that Treaty to come into force for all 27 EU States before that election.

This change of government in Britain will enable our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland, as well as the British people, to give their view on the undemocratic  Federal EU Constitution which Lisbon embodies, so that they can reject it as French, Dutch  and Irish voters have already done.

As William Hague, Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary, wrote in the Irish Times on 27 July: "If Lisbon remains unratified by all EU members, a Conservative government will put Britain's ratification of the treaty on ice and hold a referendum, recommending a No vote to a document that we believe represents an outdated centralising approach to the EU. So the chances are growing that Ireland' voters will not be alone in saying No to Lisbon for long." 

Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen should now tell his EU partners that he thinks the wisest course in relation to Lisbon is to wait until the British people and the people of Northern Ireland can have their say on this profoundly important treaty.

He should resist the bullying of France's President Sarkozy, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and Commission President Barroso, who wish to force the Irish people to hold a Lisbon Two referendum on what legally would be exactly the same Treaty so as to reverse their No vote of last June.

Lisbon cannot come into force without Ireland.  Sarkozy, Merkel and Barroso want to reverse the Irish people's No vote even though the French and Dutch Governments respected the decision of their voters when they rejected the EU Constitution in 2005. They did not put the same Treaty to their peoples again.

By failing to tell his EU partners that Ireland could not ratify Lisbon after its June's No referendum, Taoiseach Brian Cowen encouraged them to continue with their ratifications. They now seek his connivance in imposing a  Federal Constitution on Europe and turning 500 million Europeans into real citizens of a Federal EU without permitting them any say on such a constitutional revolution by means of referendums.  

Article 6 of the Irish Constitution states that it is the right of the people "in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy".  The Irish people have decided to reject Lisbon. Respecting that decision, which the Taoiseach says he does, means not attempting to overturn it.  Any attempt to put the same Lisbon Treaty to the Irish people again would almost certainly be in breach of the  Irish Constitution and should be challenged in the Courts.  

It is outrageous of British Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown to have junked the commitment of Tony Blair  to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution in the UK, when this was a Labour Party Manifesto commitment in the last general election.  Gordon Brown's government has acted profoundly undemocratically in refusing the British people their say in this matter.
Just as Charles Stewart Parnell in the late 19th century urged the people of Ireland and Britain to support now the Liberals, now the Tories, in order to advance Ireland's interests, Irish democrats, nationalists and republicans, as well as all consistent British democrats, should now look to the British Labour Government being ejected from office at the earliest possible opportunity, so that Labour can rediscover its soul in opposition and enable the British people have their say on Lisbon just as Irish voters have done.

The practical alternative to the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution is to go back to the 2003 Laeken Declaration on a more democratic, more transparent and less centralised EU, whose laws would be made in proper democratic fashion by people who are elected directly to make them, and not by bureaucrats, judges and bankers.

What is now needed after Ireland's No is not a  "period of reflection", as after the rejection of the 2004 Constitutional Treaty, but  a "period of consultation" with the citizens of the Member States on what kind of EU people really want, as the Laeken Declaration envisaged.
The Laeken Convention from which Lisbon came was hijacked from the start by the Eurofederalists, out to give the EU the constitutional form of a Federation.  This the peoples of the EU Member States emphatically do not want, although many of their political elites do want it because it gives them more power personally at their expense of their own peoples.

The Irish people did the EU a good turn by voting No on 12 June last. Lisbon and the EU Constutution which it embodies has now been rejected in France, Holland and Ireland because it is a thoroughly bad treaty - bad for these countries and bad for the EU. 

Recall some of the bad things which Lisbon proposes to do:      

1. Lisbon would abolish the European Community which we have been members of since 1973 (Art.1 TEU) and would replace the existing EU with a legally new Union in the constitutional form of a supranational EU Federation with its own legal personality distinct from its Member States. Instead of being sovereign States in the international community,  Lisbon would reduce Ireland and the other Member States to the constitutional status of provincial states in a Federation, like Virginia inside the Federal USA or Bavaria inside Federal Germany. The laws of this new European Union would thereafter have primacy over national Constitutions and laws (Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration No.17 concerning Primacy).
2. It would make us all real citizens of this new EU Federation, owing our prime obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our citizens' duty to our national Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two.

One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. Instead of  EU citizenship being "complementary" to national citizenship and essentially notional and symbolical(Art.17 TEC), Lisbon would make EU citizenship "additional to" national citizenship (Art.9 TEU). This would give us all a real dual citizenship, not of two different States but of the Federal and provincial levels of one State, as in the USA  or German federations.

One example of this change:  If Lisbon came into force MEPs, who at present are "representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community"(Art.189 TEC), would become "representatives of the Union's citizens", just as in any State (Art.14.2 TEU).  

3.  It would be a power-grab by the Big States, with EU law-making in the Council of Ministers based henceforth primarily on population size as in any unified State, thus greatly increasing the power of the Big EU Members with large populations and reducing the voting weight of Ireland and the other smaller states. Germany's voting weight in making EU laws  would double as a result, while Ireland's would halve (Art.16 TEU).
4.  It would remove the right of EU Member States to decide who their national Commissioner would be in the ten years out of every 15 when they would have a Commissioner under Lisbon.  It would do this by replacing each Member State's present right to "propose" a Commissioner - and to insist if need be on its proposal being accepted as a condition for it accepting the proposals of others - by the right to make "suggestions" only for the incoming Commission President to decide. Who the Commission President is would be decided mainly by the votes of the Big States (Art.17.7 TEU). 

5. It  would give the EU Court the power to decide our fundamental rights as EU citizens, rights which the EU and its Member States would then have to enforce over and above our rights as Irish citizens in any case of conflict between the two (Art.6 TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.  

6.  It would weaken National Parliaments further by abolishing 68 national vetoes and would give the EU power to make European laws binding on us in some 30 new policy areas, such as crime, justice and policing, public services, immigration, energy, transport, tourism, sport, culture, public health and the EU budget.

7. It would give the EU the power to raise its own taxes and impose any tax, including income tax or sales tax, by consensus amongst the governments, without the need for further new treaties or referendums (Art.311 TFEU).

8. It would empower the EU Court of Justice to order the harmonization of indirect taxes amongst the EU countries if the Court judged that failure to do so constituted a "distortion of competition" (Art.113 TFEU).   
9.  It would militarize the EU further, requiring Member States "progressively to  improve their military capablities" (Art.42.3 TEU ) and it contains what Commission President Barroso has termed "a mutual defence clause", requiring Member States to go to the assistance of other Member States in the event of war (Art.42.7 TEU).

10.  It would subvert workers' rights by copperfastening the recent Laval, Rüffert and Luxembourg judgements of the EU Court of Justice, which were delivered after Lisbon was signed and which subordinate employee wage bargaining to the EU's internal market rules.
11.  It would be a self-amending Treaty which would permit EU law-making to be shifted from unanimity to majority voting without the need for new Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU).

12.  It would reintroduce the death penalty "in time of war or of imminent threat of war" for the European Army it envisages by providing for the post-Lisbon EU acceding as a corporate entity to Protocol 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which permits use of the death penalty on these occasions, instead of to Protocol 13, which bans the death penalty in all circumstances and which most EU Member States have acceded to (Explanation attached to Art.2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).  This item is in a  footnote of a footnote in the Lisbon Treaty and has caused much controversy in Germany and Austria, although most people in Ireland and Britain have never heard of it. 

13. It would make National Parliaments formally subordinate to the post-Lisbon EU.  Far from increasing  the power of National Parliaments, as pro-Lisbon spokesmen untruthfully assert, Lisbon underlines their implicitly subordinate role in the institutional structure of the post-Lisbon Union by providing that "National Parliaments contribute to the good functioning of the union" by various means set out in Article 12 TEU.  Under Lisbon National Parliaments must be informed of and may scrutinise draft EU legislative acts, but while the Commission is required to review the legislation if one-third of National Parliaments object, the Commission can then decide to continue with its legislation unamended, with its decision confirmed by the normal Council of Ministers QMV procedure (Protocol on  Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Art. 7.2).  In no sense is this giving "more control" to National Parliaments, as pro-Lisbon spokesmen continually assert.

14. It would create a political government of the new Union by turning the regular summit meetings of EU Prime Ministers and Presidents, known as the European Council, into a formal legal instititution of the Union for the first time (Art.13 TEU). This would mean that its acts and failures to act would become subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice (Arts 263-5 TFEU). This would also mean that individual Prime Ministers and Presidents would be constitutionally obliged henceforth to represent the Union to their Member States as well as their Member States to the Union, with the former function having legal priority in any case of conflict between the two. 
A Note on all  EU Member States keeping their Commissioners under Nice

The Lisbon Treaty's provision that Member States would lose their present right to decide who their national Commissioner would be (Art.17.7 TEU) makes the retention of one Commissioner per Member State instead of their reduction by one-third from 2014 (Art.17.5 TEU) of little value anyway, should this be agreed next December as expected.

A declaration by the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents that if Lisbon is ratified by all Member State including Ireland the European Council will exercise its discretion in 2014 to have one Commissioner for every Member State might have some political but no legal value, for it would not be part of the Treaty.  It could only be relied on until such time as no one was paying attention anymore post-Lisbon, when the European Council could use its discretion to cut the number of Commissioners or - perhaps more likely - introduce permanent senior and junior ones.

The Nice Treaty's Protocol on EU Enlargement (Art.4.2) requires the number of EU Commissioners to be less than the number of Member States from 2009, although by an unspecified number to be agreed unanimously. If the  European Council is now prepared to accept that the number of Commissioners should continue to be equal to the number of Member States, it would be perfectly possible for it to agree to an amendment to the Nice Treaty to repeal the present Article 4.2, get that approved by the EU Parliament and then ratified by all the Member States. This would not need a referendum in Ireland to approve it.  
Art.4.2 of Nice's Protocol on EU Enlargement could also be legally implemented by the Member States agreeing that from 2009 that there would be 26 Commissioners instead of 27 and  that each country would lose its Commissioner in alphabetical order every five years, beginning with Belgium. This would mean that Member States would only lose their Commissioner every 135 years (five times 27) and Ireland's turn would not come for 30 years. Former Irish Attorney General David Byrne referred to this as another legal possibility when he was Irish Commissioner during the 2001 and 2002 Nice Treaty referendums.
In practical reality the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents can agree unanimously to keep all 27 Commissioners if they are so inclined, as a political necessity, and it is hard to see anyone objecting or being  able  to enforce legally a contrary position. 

Anthony Coughlan

Thursday, 25 September 2008


An interesting item popped up in my e-mail, it seems that a group of dedicated anti-EU campaigners are trying to force a prosecution of treason and lodged an official complaint at the Whitley Bay police station

Herb Goodwin and Gillian Swanson, of Whitley Bay, Nathan Allonby, of Cullercoats, and Susan Pearson, of Belford, Northumberland (all within the Northumbria Police area) met outside Whitley Bay Police Station at 10.30 on Wednesday morning, 24th September, to report sedition and treason against the Heath government.  A photographer from the Whitley Bay Guardian was present, and took several photographs of the group, holding a large brown envelope containing the evidence. 
They then went into the police station, where a police officer noted the crimes, and took Mrs Swanson's address and phone number, then asked us to wait for another officer, who would come and deal with the matter.
Graeme Turnbull, PC No 3764, came out to speak to us.  He agreed to take our documentation of evidence against the Heath government for the crimes of treason and sedition, but would not accept a crime had been committed before further investigation had been made.  However, he took our evidence, gave us a reference number, and said we would be informed of the progress of our report.
PC Turnbull would not sign our notes to this effect, when offered the opportunity, but agreed with the paragraph above when it was read out to him.
Initially, he had said that this was a political matter, and asked if we contacted the MP for Tynemouth constituency, Alan Campbell, about it.  We said it was not a political matter, a crime had been committed.  Mrs Swanson added that, in any case, she wished to bring a further accusation of sedition and treason against Mr Campbell himself.  PC Turnbull asked on what grounds.  Mrs Swanson said, because he had supported the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, which completed the job of sedition and treason begun by the Heath government.
PC Turnbull said that a crime had to be committed against a person, and asked who was the victim of the crime we were reporting.  We said that we, as individuals were the victims.  He then said that it would be to our advantage to take legal advice to ascertain whether it was worth pursuing our present course of action, because, although the crime of treason was still on the statute book, the 1842 Treason Act specified that treason must be an an act against the monarch.
Interestingly, he also said that treason was still a capital offence.  Mrs Swanson queried this, since she understood that Mr Blair's government had abolished capital punishment for treason.  PC Turnbull said, no, it was still a capital offence.

I wish them well with this but hold out little hope that it will get anywhere, using the work and research done by Anne Palmer of Wolverhampton, we presented a case to Walsall Magistrates court during October 2004.  It was thrown out because the sneaky Blair Government had repealed our most important acts of treason in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act.  The question has to be asked, why would a new Prime Minister when elected in 1997, want to make one of his earliest tasks to quietly repeal the Acts of Treason?  Did he know that what he was to undertake by giving even more power and influence to the EU was to be treasonable?

Wednesday, 24 September 2008


Pressure is mounting for the Irish to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty
Robert the Bruce of Scotland has a lot to answer for, it was he after all who said: “If you don’t succeed the first time, try, try, and try again”, which is a motto the European Union’s undemocratic leaders have taken to heart.

Whenever the is a vote taken which does not give the EU the result it desired, it always insists the electorate must have got it wrong (how can they possibly oppose the EU) and they have to do it again and get it right the next time. According to the EU the French did not vote against the EU constitution, they were unhappy with their government and gave the wrong result, similar things were said in Holland too. 

But what of the Irish when they voted no to the Lisbon Treaty, which everyone on the planet knows is the EU constitution - but we are not supposed to call it that. How could the Irish be so ungrateful after receiving the EU’s largess for all those years? (British and German taxpayers money really) With this in mind and once again its a case of: ‘Surely the Irish have got it wrong?’ 

There is much talk within the EU’s corridors of corruption about the Irish having another referendum next year to give them a chance to repent their sins against the EU and its Lisbon Treaty. Within the EU the people of Eire have created another Irish problem, and the French and Germans are bringing pressure to bear on the Irish leaders to sort it out. An internal EU briefing paper written by a group of French officials called: ‘Le Amis du Traite de Lisbonne’, or Friends of the Lisbon Treaty, guarantees that Ireland would not lose its European Commissioner and “declarations” to preserve its views on neutrality, abortion and taxation, which were high profile topics during the Irish referendum campaign.

The EU is desperate to get the Irish to agree to the Lisbon Treaty by June 2009, if is not there are fears within the EU that there will be no more Lisbon Treaty and in the European elections the Eurosceptics will triumph.

It’s not just the Irish who are proving to be a thorn in the side of the EU, the architect of the EU constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, at the beginning of September accused Britain of ‘hampering’ the creation of the EU superstate.

Tuesday, 23 September 2008


Gawain Towler, silenced by the EU
Gawain Towler is a very clever young man, he is one of the UK Independence Party's bright young members who is rapidly rising in the EU-sceptic campaign and making a profile for himself within UKIP.  As the older farts such as the editor of this blog fade away, Gawain and other younger activist will be there to take our campaign forward.

One way of taking on the might of the EU is through EU critical publications and blogs, that is why this blog is often worked on late into the night, and Gawain is no exception as a blogger of quality with his 'England Expects' blog, which, if you click on the link you will see that Gawain, who works in the EU Parliament for the EU-sceptical Independence & Democracy Group, has been ordered to stop bloging.  This is quite ironic as his duty is to serve the ID Group which looks to dish the dirt on the EU - of which there is lots - yet as someone employed by the Parliament is not allowed to say anything derogatory about it.  This is the insane world of the EU at its maddest best.

What is really worrying, is the moves and noises being made within the EU to close down blogs such as this which are critical to it.  EU Referendum, another and far greater EU-sceptical blog, has written a piece about this which you can read here.  The question is how does the EU intend to make this full frontal attack against our liberty?  This blog has not been going that long and it already looks as if there will be a fight for survival at some future date.


John Le Carré is a man who knows a lot about the world of espionage,
so when
 he gives a warning that we are in danger of loosing our freedoms we should sit up and take note, although most who read this sort of blog will have known that fact for a long time and could probably tell Mr Le Carré a thing or two.

He has shown great concern about the vote to extend the extension someone suspected of terrorism can be held for up to 42 days without charge, and has been highly critical of the ministers who voted for it.  He has urged the peers to throw out the plan, but knowing how hard Labour has nobbled the Lords the chances are it will pass through there with the only real challenges coming from the EU-sceptic peers such as the cross bench peer Lord Stoddard and UKIP peers Lord Pearson and Willoughby De Broke.

Le Carré describes himself as "an angry old man" and is furious with this Government for its sustained attack on our liberties - and sustained they have been.

Few people seem to realise the awesome power the Government has over us, it created the appalling Civil Contingencies Act giving the government minister the power of total control.  All that is required is for there to be a suspected emergency of some kind, whether real or not, then Parliament will be closed and the police and special forces can not only shut down a whole area, it can seal it off completely.  Anyone stuck in this area will lose all connections to the outside world, their services cut off, they may find their property confiscated without any rights to get it back and if they prove to be awkward or try to leave the secure area they can be shot and there will be no Charles De Menzes type inquest afterwards.  If you want to take a look at it, then here it is.

In the years since 1997 when Tony Blair minced into number 10 Downing Street, the ordinary people of this country have been under constant attack from its own elected Government.  As Shami Chakrabati of Liberty stated: "It is a shame that it takes a writer of fiction to give the Government a reality check."


Have you been following the Labour Party conference in Manchester?  All eyes, and ears, have been concentrating on (not very flash) Gordon Brown's fight for survival, which is the modern day equivalent of watching a man going to his doom on the scaffolding.  These days we no longer have public executions - we have party conferences where the politically doomed try to pretend the axe is not about to fall - but look at heir faces and you see another story.  Gordon Brown looks like a terrified rabbit caught in the headlights.

But while one star fades, another ascends, and little David Miliband is doing all he can to make his star rise above all the others.  So, what would happen if this little boy wonder managed to place his bum on the big chair in Downing Street?  The prospect is too frightening to contemplate.

His background and family history is based on Marxist theories, he is rabidly pro-European Union and he is a danger to our freedom.  If you read the extract below of his speech at the Labour conference on Monday 22nd September, you will see that he as no problem with the European Arrest warrant that puts all British subjects at the mercy of foreign courts without any protection from the Government, even in cases where they are accused of crimes that may not be a criminal offence in the UK.

Within his speech he said: "We've talked about being a bridge between Europe and America.
I've made that speech. I'll always defend our alliance with the US and our membership of the EU.

For me, both are permanent commitments, beyond individual personalities, not tactical positions.

But I have to acknowledge that both Europe and America are less popular now than ten years ago. It's not enough to talk about a bridge. So what do we do? Some want distance from America.
Others want distance from Europe. The Tories want divorce from both. But those are the wrong lessons. We share core values with America. It has more power for good than any nation in the world.
And we must come together in a great project.

In the 1940s and 50s we built international institutions to promote peace for a divided globe.

Today, we need institutions which re-define the global rules for our shared planet.

From Burma to Zimbabwe we need to ensure all countries feel it's better to play by the rules rather than ignore them.

And while I'm at it wasn't it brilliant to see Aung San Suu Kyi alive and well outside her house last week. I think it will be a hundred times better when she takes her rightful place as the elected leader of a free and democratic Burma.

And the EU, for all the attacks on it, is one international institution we need today. The European Arrest Warrant snared the 21st July bomber. European commitments are leading the fight against climate change.

Europe needs to look out, not in, to the problems beyond its borders that define insecurity within our borders. It doesn't need institutional navel-gazing and that is why the Reform Treaty abandons fundamental constitutional reform and offers clear protections for national sovereignty. It should be studied and passed by Parliament.

And to every Tory MP we should say: there are 8 members of your shadow cabinet who voted against a referendum on The Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Europe has divided them for 15 years and it's not going to divide us."

He is devious with the truth also, note what he said about the Lisbon Treaty which he still calls the "Reform Treaty".  As we all know this is the EU constitution in all but name and it has been designed to destroy national sovereignty, not protect it as he tries to deceive.  If he becomes the Prime Minister of this once fair land, then we are finished, he is a danger to British sovereignty.  

A bit more to see on the Daily Telegraph site.

Monday, 22 September 2008


The one thing the EU can always be relied on is to take full advantage of a good crisis.  When a disaster happens, no matter what, you can bet your bottom dollar (or should that be crashed dollar?) that the EU's apologists will have a very good reason why that particular crisis is a good reason for more power and control to be handed over to the European Union.  Few actually seem to question the fact that may of the problems encountered have been created by the EU - none the less if it's a problem then the answer is always to increase the influence of the European Union.

The current financial crisis is no exception, the euro has created inflation across Europe, it is generally loathed by the people forced to use it, but the answer, as reported in the Euro Observer, is to to let the EU take control.


We live in a free country (just) so anyone is at liberty to give money to political
 causes if the so wish, but why oh why, did the Harry Potter creator JK Rowling want to give the hard Labour Party a million quid?

She said she has given this donation because of her conviction that Gordon (failing fast) Brown's Labour Party will help child poverty - you betcha - there will be more impoverished kids thanks to taxem Brown and his Labour Party, which is currently around £17 million in dept.

Gordon Brown's popularity in his own party is failing so fast his MPs and activists, who are gathering in Manchester for their conference, must be referring to him by now as 'he who can't be named'.  This next week could be interesting to see how Gordon the Dark Lord copes with the disaffection, he will need a lot of magic to get him through.

Sunday, 21 September 2008


Those of us in the campaign against membership of the anti-democratic EU are involved because we value our unique way of life, our democracy, our sovereignty and our system of law.  Sadly, those who dislike their own country so much they are quite happy to see these values undermined by tying us ever closer to the EU resort to calling anti-EU campaigners racist as their own arguments are so badly flawed they have no other option but to resort to the irrational.

Their arguments are soon destroyed when people of other ethic backgrounds support the very things we are campaigning for.  In fact in my opinion the two clerics in this land today who make the most sense are not of white British origin, they are the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who unlike the fuzzy thinking of the Archbishop of Centerbury, Dr Rowan Williams, actually talk some common sense  (This is turning out to be an appropriate posting for a Sunday).

Further to my previous posting on the introduction of Sharia law in this country, it was pleasing to read in the Sunday Telegraph an article by Dr Michael Nazir-Ali why we should resist Saharia law and defend our system of one law for all.  Although the Bishop of Rochester would never have seen this blog, within his article he voiced almost exactly the same concerns which I posted earlier.  He was concerned that the rights of women, so hard won over the years, would be seriously undermined by Sharia law and expounded on other concerns too, especially the fact that the decisions made in Sharia courts in this country are contrary to public law.

I would urge you to use the Sunday Telegraph link above and read his article, it makes sense and is well written.  I will also be interested to see how the anti-British apologists will try to tarnish him - they can't brand him a racist.

If you scroll down the comments you will come across this posting by Elizabeth Ann Bidulph who is a tireless anti-EU campaigner and devout Christian: "As an English Christian lady, I feel I now have the right to demand the right to live under the Christian, Anglo Saxon Laws of King Alfred the Great, as recent laws, including those undemocratically imposed upon my nation by the EU, run contrary to my beliefs, my culture and to the ancient, English Christian based laws I was once content to live under. English Christians must now claim the equal right of setting up our own English Christian courts. I rest my case."

Saturday, 20 September 2008


From the Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolken
The second part of that wonderful story, Lord of the Rings, has just been on Channel Four.  I can never resist that wonderful tale which I first read in 1970.  I put the above map together a few years ago and couldn't resist using it again now.  The EU is our dark lord with its ring of gold stars which aims to rule us all.  Click on the drawing to enlarge it.


Our little local politicians, who like to swagger around their towns like little fish in even smaller ponds, really do struggle to make sense of the world today.  Although they are now paid for their time, they have far less authority and influence than the civic leaders of past years who did their work without fiscal reward.  Over the last eleven or so years New Labour has pulled the rug from under them but they are so afraid of losing their little perks they continue to act as if their actions and deeds really matter, whilst half the time they don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the wider world.

One of my local Conservative Councillors in Walsall has recently been a prime example of this, Councillor Garry Perry (photo above) has been banging on about Post Office closures without fully understanding the real reason why we have been inflicted with this postal holocaust.

In a letter to the Walsall Observer, 19th September 2008, he called both of Walsall's two Labour MPs hypocrites for complaining about the closure of our Post Offices whilst at the same time voting with the Government for their closures.

He should be careful about using the term “hypocrisy” regarding our two Walsall Labour MPs when it comes to Post Office closures, his pro-EU Conservative Party has Post Office blood on its hands too.  Although he was correct to point out that David Winnick and Bruce George have acted with little honour over this matter as they voted with their Labour Government’s wishes to comply with yet another disastrous European Union directive - which is where the problem began - but he should realise it was with Conservative assistance.

This whole Post Office mess stems from the EU’s directives on Postal Services, which his Conservative MEPs voted for, along with Labour and Liberal Democrat MEPs. Only UKIP MEPs voted solidly against. The same applies to the Referendums in France, Denmark and Ireland on the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty (a revamped and almost identical treaty to the constitution). UKIP funding from the Independence and Democracy Group in the European Parliament was used to fund the ‘No’ campaigns in these countries, whilst Conservative money from the rabidly federalist EPP group in the Parliament was used to fund the ‘Yes’ campaigns. What could be more hypocritical than Conservative activists trolling around the country saying they are against these treaties whilst funding the ‘Yes’ votes for them at the same time?

The only political party which puts the interests of the British people first is the UK Independence Party, please remember that fact next June when you vote in the European elections. This will be your chance to voice your opinion on the Lisbon Treaty and the EU inspired Post Office closures - the other parties can not be relied on to defend your interests.


Godfrey Bloom: criticised for comments.
The UKIP MEP for Yorkshire, Godfrey Bloom, is one of those rare specimens of the political world, he has lived, worked and run a business in the real world and when it comes to talking about how the EU adversely affects businesses he knows what he is talking about.

It was he, you may recall, who was slagged off by the media and all sorts of Women's groups for stating the obvious: "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."  The simple fact is small businesses cannot afford it.

Such piffling matters are of no concern to the EU, which seems to propose legislation that the large multinational businesses can cope with but will destroy small to medium sized companies.  It is now proposing that maternity pay is tripled for pregnant women by forcing employers to give them full pay for the first 18 weeks of maternity leave, the burden such a measure would impose on many smaller businesses could mean the difference of survival or total collapse in hard economic times such as those we are entering into, or a savage cut in profits during better times.

Such a move would see many businesses taking the advice given by Godfrey Bloom and many younger women finding it extremely difficult to find employment or for an improvement to their career prospects.  Once again the EU is poking its nose in where it is unwanted and leaving a trail of chaos behind it.  Godfrey was also famous for saying that women should clean behind the fridge, if the EU has its way that will be all that is left for them to do!

Friday, 19 September 2008


Malta's shipyards under threat from the EU
One of the biggest employers in Malta is the state owned shipyards, but since joining the EU, like other member states, the elected Maltese government has to obey the unelected EU Commission even if the Commission’s demands are against the interests of the electorate.

Reported in the Times of Malta (18th September 2008) it stated: "The European Commission is piling pressure on the government to declare Malta Shipyards bankrupt and liquidate the company before continuing the process of privatisation of all parts of its assets.”

The Maltese government was willing to absorb losses of around €100 million which are expected to accumulate by the end of the year when the seven year restructuring deal agreed with the EU ends. If Malta Shipyards is liquidated and all its workers made redundant with few rights for compensation.

Poland's shipyard workers are also facing the same scenario for the same EU inspired reasons. The EU is demanding that their shipyards must repay the state aid given them against EU rules over the past years by the Polish government.

Malta’s anti-EU campaigning organisation, the Campaign for National Independence (CNi) has described the comments made by Neelie Kroes, the EU Competition Commissioner, on the Malta Shipyards privatisation as “a national humiliation”. Former Maltese Prime Minister, Karmanu Mifsud Bonnici, said: “This disgusting act shows that the government which was democratically elected by the Maltese people is no longer sovereign and able to decide national matters as it deems fit in the interests of the Maltese people.

‘The will of the European Union is superior to the will of the majority of the Maltese people. The national interest safeguarded by by the Maltese government has to be sacrificed to the EU competition rules.”

Poor little Malta has only had a few years of real independence and now its own government, like the all the governments of the member nations, have surrendered that freedom for an ideal which acts against the interests of the people, as in Malta.


The EU Commission President, Jose Emanuel Barroso, has described the EU as an "Empire", which despite denials by our Europhile politicians, shows that Euro fundamentalists such as Barroso and his cronies are intending the EU becomes a nation in its own right - their little empire.  But all empires collapse and fall and the EU empire is already on the wane before its constitution has got past the Irish blockade.

According to the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which is a European think tank, has been keeping itself occupied by studying ten years of UN voting statistics.  Their findings show that since the late 1990s the EU has lost the support of 41 of its former allies showing that its influence in the UN is in decline.

The report stated: "Europe has lost ground because of a reluctance to use its leverage and a tendency to look inwards - with 1,000 coordination meetings in New York alone each year - rather than talk to others.  It is also weakened by a failure to address flaws in its reputation as a leader on human rights and multilateralism,"  The Romans had the barbarians at the gates, the EU its own inward policies and naval gazing to blame - plus the fact it's useless!

Wednesday, 17 September 2008


Nick Clegg: waffle in Bournemouth
As the bearded and besandled ones shuffle away from their Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth, the pundits are trying to make sense of it all as the Lib Dims have had a complete arse about face on policy.

Out has gone the their old policy of increasing taxes, in has come a promise to reduce taxes for the lower paid and middle classes. Out has gone the policy to scrap the pound ASAP - that's been put on hold but not forgotten, and in has come a policy of reducing red tape and bureaucracy. This lot must really be desperate and feeling the squeeze.

However, when you listen to what Cleggies Lib Dummies are promising, without a policy of withdrawal from the EU they haven't a hope in hell of honouring those promises. Jeremy Paxman tore Lib Clegg to shreds on Newsnight because he could not honestly answer him how he was going to fund his tax cuts. And when it comes to not knowing what he is talking about, calamity Clegg thought the old age pension was £30 a week! What a dip-stick that man is.

As I have been reminding everyone since the Lib Dems entered their world of fantasy, if you want the things the Lib Dems are offering such as tax cuts and a bonfire of red tape, then you will have to vote UKIP to get it. They are the only ones able to deliver as they are the only political party willing to take the UK out of the EU.


The Independence & Democracy Group in the European Parliament, which is the EU critical group the British UK Independence Party MEPs belong to, have produced a video exposing the EU's green scam.  

To see the video click on this link: Out of Control


If you read Revelations in the bible, the way the end of days is described does not seem too far from the state of things today.  The fiscal markets are in collapse, one of the largest investment banks, Lehman's, has gone under leaving 5000 its employees in this country out of work, and the insurance group AIG at risk, and all around there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth - grim innit'

Over on the Euro Referendum blog there is a posting relating to this, its worth a look.

Sunday, 14 September 2008


Derek Bennett and Tess.

Although the decrepit Labour Party Party frustrate me no end, they are the way they are because they are useless - it's in their political genes and we just have accept that fact and hope the inevitable damage they will do when they take office will be repairable after they have gone.  The Tories make me rant because they have not only betrayed the people by selling us out to the EU, they have also betrayed their traditional Tory values and their own party members.  The party that takes the real biscuit, however, and the party that makes me want to jump up and own in sheer frustrated rage at their outrageous hypocrisy and bare faced cheek, are the Liberal Democrats whose conference has just started in Bournemouth.

Calamity Clegg and his besandled band of no-hopers will be talking about saving our Post Offices which their MEPs have helped to destroy by voting for the EU directives on postal services, they will be spouting all sorts of bullshine about cutting taxes when the cost of membership of the EU they worship will just keep increasing, and they will talk of cutting red tape whilst their great god EU will continue to churn out a mind numbing mass of regulations year on year.  

Well. I could not let this go and made my views known on the Daily Telegraph comments page.  Scroll down to read.


Old shipmates: Fred English and Albert Ashford
A reflection of how low this nation has sunk was reflected in the Daily Mail, Saturday 13th September, which reported that the Royal Navy is now so impoverished that it is considering the selling off of the Lord Nelson’s flagship, HMS Victory. In its day and right through to the second world war Britain was always proud of its navy which it claimed was one of the finest navies in the world - although by the time of World War Two it was outclassed by size against the US navy.

My father in Law, Fred English (good name that), served in the Royal Navy in the Pacific towards the end of the Second World War in what he calls ‘the Forgotten Fleet’. His ship, the Euryalus was a Dido class cruiser and a sister ship to HMS Belfast which now resides on the River Thames in London opposite the Tower of London. We should all be proud of our navy not just for the fact that many of our family members may have served, but for all that it has done for us over the centuries.

Sadly, this Government which does not seem to care a jot about the British people, our country, our history or the future of this once great nation, in line with past governments over the years since the last war, have been systematically undermining and destroying our armed services and our capability to defend ourselves against an aggressor. In fact, to show their distorted priorities, since Tony Blair first walked through the door of No 10 Downing Street, they have slashed £billions from our defence budget have pumped an equal amount into the project to force us all to carry I.D. cards which will allow the Government to hold masses of data on each and everyone of us. They obviously now fear the people far more than a possible aggressor.

What was once the pride of the British Naval fleet built in 1765 at Chatham docks, HMS Victory, is now getting too expensive for the Royal Navy to maintain and preserve. The £1.5 million minimum it costs to keep her in good order is putting far too much strain on the little reserves of cash given to the Royal Navy, which is now considering giving the Victory to a charitable trust or a private company similar to that which looks after the Mary Rose.

There can be no doubt that this Government has its priorities in the wrong place. If it came to its senses and quit the EU the £billions our membership costs annually could be put to the things that are important to the British people whose money it is the Government is squandering - we could even restore our navy to a force that could protect us.

If we can't preserve and protect our history, our traditions and customs, and if these things mean so little to those that govern us, then we are sinking fast into oblivion and will be engulfed in a grave called the European union.
Linda Bennett, Her father Fred English and HMS Belfast


Sorry there was no blogging on Saturday due to a slight glitch with my old Mac, however, this amusing little tale came my way and I am sure it must now be in the New Labour handbook on spinning listed under: 'How to Spin'!

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: "Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889."

Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for inclusion in Judy's forthcoming book:

"Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1885, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887 he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889 Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed."

And that is how it's done, folks.

Saturday, 13 September 2008


The EU flag, a flag of occupation
Although the Lisbon Treaty is classed as something completely different to the EU constitution by the bunch of deceitful toads who run the EU, it is in fact not far short of being exactly the same.  One of the differences between the EU constitution and the Lisbon Treaty was that the EU flag and Ode To Joy, which was classed as the the EU anthem, were no longer recognised in any official manner, although they still existed and the EU never ceased using them.

On the 12th September 2008 the Daily Telegraph reported that both the flag and the anthem were back on the agenda as a way of trying to get people to recognise the EU and have empathy for it (fat chance!)  In fact, like the Nazi swastika, the EU's flag represents a flag of occupation and the repression of the nation states which have to submit to the EU.

The long standing and highly regarded anti-EU campaigner, Anne Palmer, wrote the following article:-
MAY 1999. As 1 flipped through the pages of "Debates of the European Parliament", my eyes happened to rest on the llth April 1983,and where the MEPs were discussing the flag for the European Community. Certain experts were called in, heraldry specialists, politicians and so on . They seemed to have moved with extraordinary speed on deciding what sort of pattern the flag should have, having started the deliberations from 1945 to 1955 and now here they were again in 1983, discussing whether to adopt the Council of Europe's flag.

It seemed the symbolic aspect played an important part in the debate. The outcome was that twelve stars were chosen, because 'twelve' symbolizes a whole. Six doesn't have this connotation. If the flag had twelve stars there could be no suggestion of adding new stars should the Community one day number more than twelve Member states. Twelve has a symbolic value: the twelve signs of the zodiac stand for a whole year and the whole universe,. The twelve months symbolize the whole year and two periods of twelve hours the whole day. The circle of twelve stars on a blue field would represent completeness and diversity, it was said, and thus embody Europe.

One person wanted to hold a competition, to involve more people in the designing of a new flag, but this idea was finally rejected. Some wanted a circle of laurel leaves and some wanted a symbol in the centre of' the gold stars. An "E" was suggested for Europe or EPPE for European Parliament One suggestion was a green flag with a white "E" known as the flag of Churchill's underpants, (NO, I am not making this up) (no doubt Churchill would have turned in his grave if this idea had been adopted). Most of all they wanted a flag to be an important symbol to represent European integration. (Yes, they were full of 'integration' at that point in time too).
For me, all the discussions reminded me of another, different flag, which was formed in the 1920's, so alike are the thoughts.  On page 426 of Adolph Hitler's book of "Mein Kampf" is "After innumerable trials, I decided upon a final form--a flag of red material with a white disc bearing in the centre a black swastika. After many trials I obtained the correct proportions between dimensions of the flag and of the white central disc as well as that of the swastika. And this is how it has remained ever since the 1920's.

On reading Mein Kampf, the European Union seems to be following many of Adolf Hitler's main plans. One expression reminds me so much of the many times we hear this ----- RESOLVED to implement common foreign and security policy, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world. (Treaty on European Union. Maastricht 7th Feb 1992).

"That was the reason why the fleet was built. It was not for the purpose of attacking or annihilating England but merely to defend the concept of world peace, and also to protect the principle of conquering the world by "peaceful" means. (Adolf Hitler ---- Mein Kampf) All very sad really ---- so many died ----- we did-not understand the poor man, for all that he wanted was world peace.